FIFY. I don't doubt you are capable of inflicting a truly violent ass-licking. One shudders to imagine.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
If he licks ass with the same zeal in which I imagine he licks windows, he’ll be an ass-licking star.
the only objectionable thing that Trump said in that video was that the sucker-punching of the finger-flipping protester was defensible. It was not, at least on face (NPI). But dollars to donuts, there was more to it and as usual only the inciteful part was shown. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, but you can't blame me for acknowledging the way things are in that regard.
As @pooponduke indicated, the 'violence' suggested was not necessarily unreasonable and a far cry from inciting rampaging antifa and BLM maniacs destroying and injuring for hours on end or even the melee at the capitol. This was weak.
lol, he already is in the ass-licking HOF.. If ever there was a world-beating ass-licker, it would be him. How else could he hold down a job in the adult world.
Can you name many former never-Trumpers that aren't vying for appointed jobs or weren't just direct competitors (desantis for example)?
2 billion saudi dollars says differently
Also, unlike the rubes the left actually wants to see corruption punished
the only reason he would feel obligated to call her is if he somehow feels responsible. Hey hold on, maybe we've got something here.
Actually, I'm sure the only obligation he feels would be to politically pre-empt any criticism of his NOT calling. If he feels the need to personally console those who suffer tragedy that he had no hand in, he's got a lot of calling to do.
Put me in the camp of believing it would better if he didn't call her, but merely expressed sympathy in the process of publicly condemning the act. That would seem more sincere and less subject to accusations of grandstanding.
I wasn't referring to politicians. I personally know several people who were in the "anyone but Trump" camp in 2020 that have seemed to change their tune this time around. Obviously anecdotal, and thus names are irrelevant, but rest assured that you'll see them, and many more like them, numerically represented in the delta between the vote tallies from 2020 to 2024.
from a NYT article, which otherwise is highly questioning... I would read the entire article because I'm not trying to hide the fair questioning part. But then deep in the article there's this...
Saudi investment questions
"While advising Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner developed a friendship and informal alliance with the Saudi crown prince. Prince Mohammed signaled that he favored closer relations between Israel and the Arab monarchs of the Persian Gulf, which was also one of Mr. Kushner’s priorities while in the Trump administration. He helped negotiate a series of agreements, called the Abraham Accords, opening diplomatic relations between Israel and other Arab monarchies. After leaving government, he set up a nonprofit to promote economic and other ties between the countries.
In Washington, Mr. Kushner had also helped broker $110 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia over 10 years. He helped protect those and other weapons deals from congressional outrage over the murder of Mr. Khashoggi and the humanitarian catastrophe created by the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen."
To begin with, at least Kushner's investment endeavor was a legit one. Secondly, if the Saudi money seems to represent corruption of some sort, one can counter that it also seems to have been a form of appreciation for Kushner's contribution to the establishment of a heretofore unheard of connection between Israel and other Arab states.
As somewhat of an aside, The Times article is critical in the above paragraph of S.A. creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It somehow fails to mention the humanitarian crisis created by Iran that S.A was responding to. That wouldn't support the questioning slant/thrust of the article.
It’s not her speech that I’m criticizing. It’s her husbands alleged stance that he wouldn’t want her to talk to biden cause he’s Republican. And yes that in itself is harmless but I just see it as indicative of the irrational state of politics today.
keep this up and the drinks and gizzards are gonna be on me.
Of course she’s not obligated. Championship sport teams aren’t obligated to accept invites to the wh either. Im just saying if you make such decisions based on political party affiliation you’re part of the problem. The very problem that got her husband killed. As much as I dislike trump, and that’s a lot, I would take the call or the invite and I would be respectful and courteous with him just as with anyone else. Well except telemarketers.
Last edited:
Does this mean you've made amends with all those pesky tourists? And during the height of tourism season?!
Do they actually like Trump's potential now or just hate the Dems more? What made them flip flop in your opinion?
More the latter, I think. Whether fair or not to attribute to Biden, the rise in cost of living over the last 4 years, and the rise in illegal immigrants even in MA (lot of them living at Logan airport causing issues) made them start to sour on Biden. His recent cognitive decline seems to be the final push away from being able to pull the lever for him.
I don't think many of them are "pro-Trump" by any means, but given that he has been somewhat toned down relative to how he messaged in the past, coupled with the fact that he hasn't been front and center in their face everyday the way he was during Covid, has made him the slightly more palatable option of the two this time around.
Between ass licking, licking windows and eating crayons I'm surprised he has time for anything. Now if you really want to try and hand out an ass kicking, I'm your huckleberry.
As I've expressed above, I don't disagree with the sentiment you are expressing because I think there is a distinction to be made between the individual and the office they occupy. I may have issues with Biden and virtually all his policies, but he's still our president. However, this is an all sides problem and the partisanship stances are as old as the parties themselves and not new to "the irrational state of politics today." From Wiki:
Yellow Dog Democrats is a political term that was applied to voters in the Southern United States who voted solely for candidates who represented the Democratic Party. The term originated in the late 19th century. These voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican",[1][2] or, "vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket".[3] The term is now more generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight party ticket under any circumstances. The South Carolina Democratic Party and Mississippi Democratic Party, among other state parties, continue to use the phrase to refer to committed members of the Democratic Party in the "Yellow Dog Club".[4][5]
The Carolina Dog's wildness and its ginger coat led to its being called a "yaller dog", which in turn may have led to the expression "yellow dog Democrat".[3]
The term "yellow dog" may be a reference to the Carolina Dog, a dog breed without European heritage and indigenous to the Americas (specifically the Southern United States)
Imagine thinking hooking up SA with weapons and pointing out that they have a common enemy is some sort of stroke of genius. Literally any nameless diplomat given the authority could’ve made that happen.
Also, I love that your “counter to corruption” is a hand waved quid pro quo like that isn’t blatant corruption. I would lose my security clearance for less than .01 percent of that as a “thank you” for a foreign national.
I bet all those world leaders staying in Trumps DC hotel paying extortionate rates is just a “thank you” as well right?
The oct 7 attack is basically a direct response by Iran to those warming relations between the two. So thats a weird diplomatic flex to hang your hat on.
And yet I would put my money on any of those Yellow Dogs taking a personal call from the President.
If not, cool. She’s just like idiots from post-civil war America (or do yall refer to it as the war of northern aggression on this board) that couldnt get over the defeat and the subsequent reconstruction.
"I'd take that bet and you're gonna regret cause . . ." Now the song will be stuck in your head.
As to the second para., you should try looking up some history of the D party, particularly in "post-civil war America". It ain't pretty and it surely isn't what you're telling yourself.
The Democratic and Republican parties have completely flipped platforms in the last century. And if you go back far enough it was one party that was originally founded by Jefferson. Neither party in its current form has any connection beyond name to what was happening in post civil war America.
One thing is absolutely clear. Anyone toeing either party line at this point is a complete moron.
Who is championing the Dems of the old south?
Its almost like a political shift happened while LBJ was in office and the Republican party took control of the lost cause sentiments.
Thats like saying the Republican’s of today have anything in common with the abolitionists of the North. No matter how hard y’all try you won’t get credit for Lincoln and Grant
I'll try again since you failed to respond to my inflammatory post yesterday. Would you not react accordingly if someone threatened to punch you in the face or engage you in a fistfight?
the reason I registered democrat way back then was for the reason you supplied. The very idea of being a republican was almost weird. Almost NO ONE would admit to being republican and hardly any were. And the dem politics at that time would put the conservativism of current republicans to shame. I voted dem once or maybe twice, I can't remember. It didn't take long for me to see the light though. Maybe I matured faster than most.
Here's your Carolina Dog, also known as the Dixie Dingo. I thought about getting one, long ago.
I can't help that history is what it is and everyone is stuck with it - good or bad. You're the one who brought up post civil war America and those "idiots". You can act like you weren't referring to them, but I was just correcting you on the false premise you were selling about who was acting like idiots after the civil war. I'm not gonna argue about it or argue that things haven't changed in various directions over time, but the history is that D's were the slave holders, D's started the KKK, D's were behind Jim Crow. That doesn't mean that the D's of today are automatically bad in any respect. People need to be judged by their individual qualities, not the letter after their names.
The civil war ended in 1865. It was more than a 100 years later when LBJ left office in Jan., 1969. You don't get to act like that century of history didn't happen and is somehow attached to a grieving widow/mother just because her husband was a supporter of Trump and happened to have the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
unsubstantiated bullshit. Maybe you could explain why it hadn't happened before, especially the part where a number of Arab entities signed that historic accord. Next time you try to make an argument, try having one to make.
again, more unsubstantiated claims. Ho hum. Can you supply anything at all to show it was corruption? Kushner was a private citizen at the time, and he had something to offer that the Saudis were seeking. That they chose to go with him, in and of itself, can NOT BE corruption. If there was corruption, it would have to involve something not even hinted at, except by the insinuations of dirty dems. If it was corruption, I sure as hell don't see you offering any evidence of it.
this has always been laughable. They had to stay somewhere, and wherever that was was going to be exorbitant. Why shouldn't Trump extend the hospitality, they were his guests here. But what's really laughable is to imagine Trump being so desperate for cash that he had to work up a one-time scheme to milk a few dignitaries. Get a life.
you are off your rocker, thinking anyone here wants credit for Lincoln and Grant. I won't even elaborate on the fact that Lincoln only proclaimed the freedom of the slaves in the Confederate States, which he only did as a strategy of war. And Grant? Go fvck yourself for that one. SMDH.
What we get UNDENIABLE credit for is for being the party responsible for the freeing of ALL slaves. Repubs, roughly speaking, are of the party that champions individual freedom. Dems are the party of mob rule.
Nice looking fellow. The parties have shifted big time over time. I always use music as an example and point out how things like "pop" and "country" have changed over the years. The political parties are no different. How would someone like JFK be registered today?the reason I registered democrat way back then was for the reason you supplied. The very idea of being a republican was almost weird. Almost NO ONE would admit to being republican and hardly any were. And the dem politics at that time would put the conservativism of current republicans to shame. I voted dem once or maybe twice, I can't remember. It didn't take long for me to see the light though. Maybe I matured faster than most.
Here's your Carolina Dog, also known as the Dixie Dingo. I thought about getting one, long ago.
Incidentally, this always makes me think of the great line from the Blues Brothers:
"We got both kinds, we got country and western."
this one bears special ridicule. The ability of Iran to back that obscenity is solely due to Biden and the dems for funding it. You have to be some kind of special idiot to open this can up on yourself.
And that isn't even to mention that Iran was not only not part of the accord in question, but actually denounced it. That didn't stop your hero from handing over a ton of money to them. You really should quit while you aren't even farther behind.
lol at the BB line.
I'm so glad to not have any association (other than a meaningless registration) with either the old democrats or the new ones.
But what I told whistlebritches is true. The flavor changes, but the republican party has always stood for individual freedoms and the BOR, while the dems want the majority's desires to hold sway over everybody.
You are absolutely pissing away $10/month. You can absolutely suck at message boarding for free, but you continue to suck at it and pay for it.
